“‘EDITORIAL: SELECTIVE CONSTITUTIONALISM UNDERMINES THE RULE OF LAW” WHY GBA SHOULD SHUT UP

By Jarra News Editorial Board

The Gambia Bar Association’s recent statement on the constitutional qualifications for the appointment of the Chief Justice has once again placed constitutionalism at the centre of the national debate. While every Gambian should welcome robust constitutional discourse, such advocacy must be consistent if it is to command public confidence and moral authority.

The Constitution cannot be defended only when it is politically convenient. It must be defended at all times, against all persons, and in every circumstance.

For many Gambians, the Bar Association’s latest intervention raises an unavoidable question: Where was this constitutional vigilance during the twenty-two years of Yahya Jammeh’s rule?

During that period, numerous constitutional amendments reshaped the country’s governance. Whether one supported or opposed those changes, the legal profession had a responsibility to subject them to rigorous constitutional scrutiny. Yet the Gambia Bar Association was widely perceived as largely absent from the national conversation while the constitutional architecture of the Republic was being altered.

The same concern arises regarding the appointment of Dr. Lamin J. Sise as Chairman of the Truth, Reconciliation and Reparations Commission (TRRC). Section 201 of the Constitution prescribes qualifications for the chairmanship of a Commission of Inquiry. If constitutional compliance is as fundamental today as the Bar Association argues, then the public is entitled to ask why similar constitutional questions were not publicly addressed when the TRRC was established.

This editorial does not seek to prejudge the legality of Dr. Sise’s appointment. Only a competent court can determine whether an appointment complies with the Constitution. Nor does it seek to diminish the historic importance of the TRRC or the courage of the victims who appeared before it.

Rather, the issue is one of principle.

If constitutional qualifications are indispensable for one high public office, they should be equally indispensable for every constitutional office. Constitutional standards cannot be selectively enforced depending on the office involved or the political climate of the day.

The rule of law demands consistency. It demands that legal institutions speak with the same conviction whether the issue concerns the Chief Justice, a Commission of Inquiry, constitutional amendments, or any other exercise of public power.

The Gambia Bar Association occupies a respected place within our constitutional democracy. With that position comes an obligation to rise above political currents and to apply constitutional principles evenly and impartially. Public confidence in the legal profession depends not only on what it says today, but also on what it was prepared to say yesterday.

Selective constitutional activism inevitably invites public skepticism. A Constitution defended only at convenient moments ceases to be a shield for the nation and risks becoming a tool of selective advocacy.

The Bar Association should therefore reflect on its institutional record and engage the Gambian people with openness and humility. Constitutional guardianship is measured by consistency, not convenience; by courage, not timing; and by principle, not personalities.

The Constitution is the supreme law of The Gambia. It deserves unwavering defenders—not occasional champions.

As our democracy continues to mature, every institution, including the Gambia Bar Association, must accept that it is subject to public scrutiny. That scrutiny is not an attack on the legal profession; it is an essential feature of democratic accountability.